What classes does Pathfinder 2e not yet have that you would like to see? : pathfinder

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

My answer, and one that occurred to me because of comments by @Kichae@lemmy.ca in this thread is the warlock.

In my view, the key aspects of the warlock are:

It must have a patron which controls its access to magic
Its magic must be of a sort that, to an outsider, could easily be confused for a wizard or sorcerer
Nevertheless, the mechanics of its magic must feel very different to play from a wizard or sorcerer

D&D 5th edition does this well with its spell slots being short rest based and always at maximum level, but far more limited in number than typical slot casters. It casts many of the same spells as a wizard rather than having an entirely different system like Pathfinder's Kineticist or (presumably) runesmith, but by preparing and casting in completely different degrees to the wizard. Whether Pathfinder did it "slotless".

The Witch is probably the "best" option for a warlock-like experience so far, and the description of the witch as having a patron is probably the biggest reason I think we'll never actually get a warlock. But the witch does a very poor job of feeling like a warlock. I don't want a pet, or to cast spells through a familiar. The actual spell progression is too vanilla. And way too many of the feats are too explicitly "witchy", like cackle, cauldron, living hair, and eldritch nails.

[–] RavindraNemandi@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Im curious why your conception of a warlock must be able to be confused with a wizard or sorcerer from an outside perspective. That has never been an aspect of warlocks in 5e that I valued, or something I particularly wanted to emphasize.

To me, a warlock character could be made using any number of classes present in pf2, including the aforementioned sorcerer, wizard and witch, but also the psychic or oracle. The fantasy of having a patron is not something that must be expressed mechanically IMO, because it ultimately boils down to "you have a connection with this powerful NPC and you need to consider their wants/needs/demands or else there may be consequenses"

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

why your conception of a warlock must be able to be confused with a wizard or sorcerer from an outside perspective

To me those three classes form a little triangle of being the "main" arcane spellcasting classes. Wizards cast through study. Sorcerers are just naturally magical. And warlocks get their spells through a patron. But all are general spellcasters, unlike, say, the nature flavour of a druid, religious flavour of a cleric, or the martial side of the magus.

The oracle is, in terms of its subclasses and feats, really good for this (with some reflavouring of the Mysteries to be applied to a specific individual patron, which is explicitly not what Mysteries are in the text). Its biggest problem mechanically is the core class using the divine spell list rather than arcane. And unfortunately that's a pretty big drawback to making the warlock fantasy work. But the bigger problem is the whole design of the Mysteries.

The fantasy of having a patron is not something that must be expressed mechanically

I just fundamentally disagree with this view. The patron of a warlock is critical to the warlock fantasy for me. It's like suggesting you could play a rogue fantasy by being a fighter with high dex and a finesse weapon. Like, yeah...you could. But having a proper class that more accurately represents the fantasy would be so much better.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel the magus might help in terms of using a magic weapon or raise a tome as a shield. could just roleplay the patron element. still to bad they did not take the oportunity to expand the witch options to have something like a tomb or weapon. maybe give them the effect like teleporting to your hand but they have to have them when casting.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I know the bladelock was extremely popular with the Reddit D&D community, but to be honest it's never super interested me. I like it existing as an option, but the magus is far too focused on that niche to work as a warlock. And using the tomb as a shield strikes me as just silly.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The tomb as shield becomes a little less silly when you factor in magic. It being a power object from a patron to me feels a bit more right with the scenario. Using any old tome does seem goofy but if its magical then makes sense.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The tomb as shield becomes a little less silly when you factor in magic

It does if you're trying to look at it as something that is literally possible in that world. But it doesn't look less silly from a conceptual standpoint. Because wandering into combat with the intention of holding a book up as a shield is still silly even if that book is magic.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

I guess I usually think of it as not like a shield but just having the same effect. so my rp is more of a force shield like a free shield spell that comes from the book. It hard to describe really but I see it in my head.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Warlock is traditionally the male equivalent of a Witch, which is probably reason enough to believe the class is never coming. It's just... here already. This is their vision for it. A few more focus spells, and a couple new archetypes is probably the best we can hope for.

The 5e-style class fantasy is probably always going to be in Psychic+Witch.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem is that, as mentioned, the witch is just a really, really bad class to use for the warlock fantasy. Aside from the fuzzy claim that warlocks are just male witches, and the fact that the witch has a thing it calls a "patron", there's basically no upside to using the witch class to play out the warlock fantasy.

And if I'm being honest, I don't really see how the psychic helps with the warlock fantasy at all.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The psychic provides the different casting mechanics. If you run Psychic + Witch Archetype, you kind of mash together the mechanics and the theme.

The 5e Warlock is just much, much too 5e at this point. Paizo can't out 5e the Warlock, and as played most Warlock builds will not work in PF2. Introducing an equivalent class at this point probably only invites negative comparisons.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

The psychic provides the different casting mechanics

Oh yes, I see. It has the "lower level spell slots drop off as you gain higher ones" thing that the oracle and magus also have, which is actually pretty similar to how 5e's warlock works. I like that mechanic, but to be clear I'm not suggesting that specifically is what warlocks should have. It's one option, for sure, but my main concern is that despite casting the same types of spells as wizards, the spells be different in some way.

Interestingly, looking at it again the psychic's conscious and unconscious mind being essentially 2 subclass choices reminds me a lot of the 5e warlock's dual-subclass choices in the patron and pact boon. Personally I don't think the pact boon is an essential part of the class (that aspect could just as easily be a feat), but that is an amusing parallel.

The 5e Warlock is just much, much too 5e at this point. Paizo can’t out 5e the Warlock, and as played most Warlock builds will not work in PF2

I mean, I'm not suggesting you just take a 5e warlock and play it in Pathfinder. That would be absurd.

I'm not particularly convinced "it would invite negative comparisons" is a strong argument against anything in Pathfinder. The entire system by its very existence has, since 1e, invited comparison to D&D. The warlock is, to my knowledge, the only class in 5e D&D that doesn't have a direct equivalent in Pathfinder. And that's a shame, because in 5e it was my favourite both mechanically* and thematically.

* something I haven't bothered talking about here at all because fundamentally the reason I like it is because of how much it feels like any Pathfinder class, with Invocations being basically like class feats. Something no other class has.

[–] robolemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’d like to see a dedicated beastmaster class where their pet does most of the damage and their main job is buffing their pet and/or debuffing its target.

I’d also like to have a real summoner who does more than just cast summon animal. It would be cool if their abilities were all summoning-based, like a 2 action ability that could summon swarms for a single round and the swarm would do a little damage plus a debuff, like blinded or sickened or whatever.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ooh yeah. Seems like the necromancer could be a good test bed for a style of class design that would also work for that summoner idea.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

there are actually more now than I had ever expected.

[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Right? I thought Paizo said they were gonna be slowing down, now they're dropping all these new playtests back to back to back

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah the two new most recently announced were a big surprise, and that's definitely part of what triggered me to post this. With as many as they've got, it's kind of surprising that they're still adding more. What more do you think they could add?

[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Every class I want is represented in game. A lot of my favorites are bit more scuffed than I would've liked, but they're there. new classes like Runesmith and Exemplar are what gets me excited for 2e now. I dunno, maybe a Rivethun class, a Prophet of Kalistrade class, and an Esoteric Knight? Mining the lore and old prestige classes for new ways of play appeals.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Personally, I'm really not a fan of when Pathfinder hard codes in its lore into the mechanics, so classes like those would not be welcome to me. I don't play in their world and it's not nearly generic enough for me to be comfortable using in my own world without either altering some mechanics or altering my world. In the CRB, dwarven clan daggers spring to mind as something I wish wasn't a core assumption of the dwarf ancestry. (Though at least it's little more than a ribbon unless you first choose to take a feat related to it.)

I'm reminded of when D&D added gravity- and time-mages based on the lore of that famous live stream group. Newer classes are easy enough to ignore, thankfully, so it's not a huge deal to add and I don't exactly resent them being there for people who do like it. But they were such dumb concepts in my mind it was annoying to see development effort spent on them rather than something more usable.

[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I do kinda get that. I'm beyond disinterested in the Blood Hunter & Illrigger on the D&D side of the coin. I just think Paizo's got all their bases covered as far as setting agnostic classes go.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Illrigger is at least fully third-party with no official WotC involvement (though yeah, same...no interest, as much as I like Colville's other stuff). It was the WotC-supported Mercer stuff that bugged me. Especially since (unlike 2024 Paizo, as you say) there is so much room for more agnostic content that could be really cool.